Breaking News (Rwanda policy)

[ajohn]

It not really accurate to say the supporting arguments were rejected, if the appeals were not heard as being out of time.

I heard a rather unclear comment about the court of human rights. It appeared that their thoughts on Rwanda was this looks like it needs studying in more detail so made an interim decision. Pass not much interest finding out as it will given the complications take some time to see how effective Rwanda is and also who etc can go there even if any. It would appear that selection is still needed and there are rules.

Then Rwanda's capacity. Their comment on that is they expect a few hundred,

A short Sunak comment when the lot was announced - we will open legal routes. Could this be take a more active role in some sort of UN quota system. This cropped up with Syria eg Germany saying we will take X. Seems we took a fair number of Syrians. They dwarf other nationalities settled here. Boris even said he was proud of it.

Kick out the convention and drop out of the court of human rights. I have my doubts as it would influence the worlds view of the country. There are mutterings that the UK would have to do this to clear "the problem" completely. The odd thing is some EU countries get more and not so much fuss. Have they and Farage highlighted the problem one way or the other and made life difficult for themselves. Farage isn't in power - SEP..It sounds like he wants to mess up politics again.

 

[motorbiking]

And the judge may decide that they are not fake, This whole area is down to the legal system.. In fact rather a lot of the problems in this area have a legal aspect. Innocent until proven guilty and a right to appeal. if high rates of appeals are successul the original decision making must be dubious. It can get to 40 odd %. Initial acceptance is ~44%. appeals lift that to 55%. This pre covid. Covid seems to have dropped arrival numbers then they increased again.

The background problem is this - finally something is being done about it but even that isn't straight forwards as clearing the back log next year is not all in limbo. It's about 90k of them if the home office meets it's target.
View attachment 289795

The cost of that against keeping it at 87%. Pass I haven't a clue.

This has been going on for years with more arriving in some. Acceptance is never 100% so I assume rejects have been handled????

The system is widely abused. The legal arguments are poor at best.

Seeing a crime committed in Greece does not make it an unsafe country.
Being asked to carry the dingy that you used to illegally enter the UK, does not mean you were subject to forced labour.
Choosing to work for drug dealers, in exchange for free illegal passage to the UK does not mean you were trafficked.

 

[motorbiking]

That must be why 86% of asylum seekers applications are sucessful.


No-one has suggested it does, except you.


No-one has suggested it does, except you.


No-one has suggested it does, except you.

you clearly haven't read the appeals.

 

[ajohn]

The system is widely abused. The legal arguments are poor at best.

The judges that make the decision are wrong then? It's pointless mentioning oddities. Forget Rwanda, The end results are what matters and they indicate that the initial decisions in some areas may be flawed. I posted what they mean in practice. Some appeals are about the status that has been offered.

Net effect 44% accepted becomes 55%. A 25% increase with some question what the appeal was about. Seen no detail on that aspect other than it happens. Where does processing rates fit in with this though?

You could argue that the people who defend them should be more careful with their money but they are politically driven, Opinions even in normal politics are mixed. What does Cruella say - this is a difficult "problem" to fix. What ever there are rejects left.

Another edit. The on the plane people will have been selected so it's hardly surprising that their appeal arguments are weak.

 

[motorbiking]

@ajohn What judges? No judges are involved in the granting of refugee status, unless there is an appeal. In the case of the Rwanda ruling, you need to read it (at least the conclusion) One claimed that because the traffickers in France carried guns and knives, France was not a safe country. I'm sure if I hung out with gangsters and criminals, my world would not be safe.

@Pat ex welcome back, I will not be arguing with you on points of law when you can't be bothered to research it properly. Your argument is irrelevant.

 

[ajohn]

No judges are involved in the granting of refugee status, unless there is an appeal. I

Well that is the area that has cropped up - cost of appeals.

 

[motorbiking]

When those knives or guns are used to force you to do something which you do not wish to do, then it makes it unsafe to remain there, or to return there. It makes it unsafe for that individual. Your broad disingenuous description is noted.


It is obvious that you misrepresent many issues. You then invite the reader to read the judgements, which are usually numerous pages long, in order to provide a counter argument.
Some of us are willing and capable of doing just that.
On several occasions I have demonstrated that your presentations of scenarios are your misrepresentations.
Your citing of someone witnessing a crime and subsequently claiming that the country is not safe is a typical example of you misrepresenting a situation.
Your citing of one refugee who was granted leave to remain in Greece, was another example of you presenting one unusual example to justify your vitriol against refugees. You forgot to mention that pre-Brexit, that refugee could have been returned to Greece.

You may have some legal training that does not per se garantee any form of impartiality.
Your prejudices are easily evident.
You have taken delight in telling us how you evade tax.
Your arguments are not irrelvant, they're biased and disingenuous arguments that need exposure for what they are.

You've only demonstrated things to yourself. Hardly persuasive.
The citing is from the cases presented in this thread, that being those who were subject to removal to Rwanda. These are their defences cited in the court ruling. Read them - I've posted the link several times.
This thread is about them. How can you expect to join an argument when you don't read up on the subject? You are blaming me for arguments presented in the case file, without realising they are not my arguments.
Tax evasion is illegal. please provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

 

[motorbiking]

so you are telling lies then.

An ISA is tax avoidance.

Exporting a boat in compliance with Section 30(8) of the VAT Act 1994, Regulation 129 and Regulation 133B of the VAT Regulations (Statutory Instrument 1995/2518) is not tax evasion.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

I'm sure they'd would be delighted to find hordes of holidaymakers flock to their hotels this xmas...but who goes to Skeggy at this time of year?

The time of year doesn't really matter. Once they're here, they are here to stay.

Maybe you should join a voluntary group that helps asylum seekers, it would be good for you.

I am already in an involuntary group that helps asylum seekers - I work for a living and pay taxes at the highest rate since WW2.

 

[Odds]

The time of year doesn't really matter. Once they're here, they are here to stay.


I am already in an involuntary group that helps asylum seekers - I work for a living and pay taxes at the highest rate since WW2.

Then i'm sure you'll be delighted to hear that ...

Suella Braverman has questioned the productivity of civil servants who process asylum claims, and declined to rule out using cruise ships to house people seeking refuge in the UK, after admitting that the cost of providing accommodation for claimants will rise to £3.5bn this year.

@TheGuardian.com

 

[algas]

Ok with me using gruise ships provided they head for frog land and disgorge all the contents onto the beaches

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Suella Braverman has .....

Suella Braverman will sort it out...Priti Patel will sort it out...Ritchi Sunak will sort it out.

WILL THEY HELL!

Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Neil Oliver and myself should be in charge of things. The waste would stop immediately.

 

[ellal]

Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Neil Oliver and myself should be in charge of things. The waste would stop immediately.

On the other hand that 'group' committing suicide might indeed work...

Wasted words, wasted deeds, wasted hatred would indeed stop...

Although not quite immediately, because there are still plenty of other xenophobes/racists out there

 

[Vinty]

, and declined to rule out using cruise ships to house people seeking refuge in the UK

At this rate, i may seek asylum myself.
Holiday camps, 4 star hotels and now Cruise ships.
Whats not to like.

 

[Vinty]

Maybe the homeless and the hordes of Brits on housing lists across the country should seek asylum from a government that doesn't give a **** about its own folk.
The worst that could happen to them is that they could end up in Butlins.